TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 101
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irector (Discipline) holding Respondent No.2 guilty of 'Other Misconduct' under Section 22 read with Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and closed the Petitioner's complaint bearing Reference No. PR-38/2017- DD/51/2017. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner had filed a complaint against Respondent No.2, a Chartered Accountant, alleging that Respondent No.2 had facilitated unauthorised access to and alteration of the petitioner's Income Tax account. The Director (Discipline), upon consideration of the complaint and the material on record, formed a prima facie opinion dated 13.03.2018 holding Respondent No.2 guilty of "Other Misconduct" under Section 22 read with Item (2) of Part IV of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, the present petition has been filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board ought to have considered that Respondent No.2 admittedly permitted the petitioner's wife to access his laptop and furnished the OTP for the petitioner's income tax account in order to allow her to access and alter his account. He submits that such conduct would undeniably fall within the definition of "Other Misconduct" under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. 8. He submits that "Other Misconduct" under Item (2) of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 expressly extends to conduct bringing disrepute to the profession whether or not related to professional....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be used and has specifically noted that Respondent No.2 was unaware of the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife at the relevant time. The Board accordingly found that the material did not justify an inference of mala fide intent or deliberate facilitation. The Board has arrived upon the aforesaid findings after appreciating the evidence on record, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence merely because another view may be possible. 13. The Board also took into account that the parties had no professional relationship and that the allegation of Respondent No.2 being the Petitioner's tax consultant was denied by both parties. It was further noted that the Director (Discipline) while givi....